If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: 2013 Bengals Discussion

Originally Posted by medford

I heard an argument, from I believe Tim Hassleback, on ESPN radio the other day. He asked which would you rather have as your backup, the current backup for last season's NFL playoff teams, or Tebow. At first blush, you'd think the current backup, but once he started running down the list of backups, Tebow doesn't seem so far out of the picture as a backup QB. He may not win you a season, but he may just win you a crucial game in the 4th quarter if your starter gets hurt.

There is a dynamic with Tebow that I haven't witnessed before. There is a group of people, a rather large group, who WANT him to win. They have overlooked his flaws for a long time because he is exactly the type of guy you want to win. This also brings about the people from the side who do their best to play the Tebow sucks side of the argument.

To be honest I would take any of the QB's on the Bengals roster right now over Tebow. If you could bring him in as a trick player then that is fine, but the entire media circus is going to come along with him.

Re: 2013 Bengals Discussion

I agree on that, the media circus he brings along with him (ironically thru no fault of his own) is what will preclude a team from signing Tebow as a backup.

I look at it this way, and I got the idea from brother in law of Elizabeth Falarski, if Dalton got hurt in the 3rd quarter of a playoff game, I think I'd rather have Tebow come into the game than Josh Johnson. If Dalton gets hurt in the 3rd game of the season and is out for a significant period of time, I'd rather have Johnson as the regular. Given that you plan your roster around the regular season, rather than a potential playoff scenerio that is less than ideal in any situation, not to mention the media circus, I want no part of Tebow as a Bengal, not even as a TE/H back guy.

Re: 2013 Bengals Discussion

Originally Posted by medford

I heard an argument, from I believe Tim Hassleback, on ESPN radio the other day. He asked which would you rather have as your backup, the current backup for last season's NFL playoff teams, or Tebow. At first blush, you'd think the current backup, but once he started running down the list of backups, Tebow doesn't seem so far out of the picture as a backup QB. He may not win you a season, but he may just win you a crucial game in the 4th quarter if your starter gets hurt.

I heard that too as he completely blew away Colin Cowherd. It was as decisive a verbal beating as any I've heard on the radio in a long, long time. Colin kept saying that he'd rather have Matt Flynn as a backuo but when presented with the reality that his 'Hawks traded Flynn and are now left with Quinn, Cowherd became a bumbling idiot frantically looking for the commercial break button.

Tim Hasselbeck did a very good job of illustrating the fact that Tebow should be compared to NFL backups, not starters. Truth be told, he is better than about half the backups but then the question is can your team adopt to his style on a dime? Ironically, I think a team like the Seahawks can because they already roll the pocket around and run a version of the read option but I don't think our Bengals are a good fit. If your O-line is trained to create a pocket and protect it at all costs, I don't think they can change in the middle of the 3rd qtr if your QB goes down

Re: 2013 Bengals Discussion

I thought the Eifert pick was ok. It was more of a luxury pick than addressing a major need. In a draft where you needed to address RB, LB, and S taking a TE in the first is a gamble.

I was hoping they'd get Vaccaro or Reid in the first. I think they probably were too -- but when that didn't happen, I think Eifert was the best player available. It was way too early for any of the RB on the board and I'm not convinced LB is that big of a need anyway. Certainly a need -- but they do have options there.

I really liked the Bernard pick. I like his explosiveness over the likes of Lacy. Lacy is too similar to BJGE and you also have to wonder if he benefited greatly from playing behind a pro oline in college.

Me, too, but I was hoping they'd get him at #53. Still, if he was their guy, they probably wanted to make sure they got him.

I don't understand the Hunt pick. It reminds me too much of the Jerome Simpson pick of a few years ago. Again when you haven't addressed the major needs taking a flier in the 2nd round is risky.

I think Hunt is far less risky than Simpson was. Plus they needed a WR more then than they need a DE now. This is a project pick, yes, but they have a roster that can afford a few projects. Plus, it is a good idea to think ahead a few years, as they probably won't be able to retain Johnson and Dunlap both.

Reports on the S from Georgia is that he is ready to start. I like that. I did like the Burkhead pick as well as the two OLmen taken. If Hawkenson can back up three OL spots I like that.

I love the S for where they got him and I also like Sean Porter the LB, who is versatile and can back up all three spots. I wasn't too sure about Hawkinson, but I tend to trust the Bengals brass on OL. Even Andre Smith turned out okay in the end, and he was a huge risk. A 5th rounder is nothing to get all worked up about -- especially when they got a guy (Fragel) a few rounds later that I would have wanted in the 5th.

Overall I wish the Bengals had been more aggressive in moving up to get players they liked. They have been aggressive in trading but they like to trade down instead of up. The reality is don't be afraid to trade up to get a guy you like, especially when you consider that your not going to keep all 8 draftees on your roster.

I think this is a draft where it didn't make much sense to trade up as the talent was deep but without many high-end blue chippers. In a draft where there are only around 10 top talents, late first and second rounders are where the value is. If they had traded one of their 2nd rounders to move up and take Vaccaro or Reid, I think they would have regretted it.

"Iíll kind of have a foot on the back of my own butt. Thatís just how I do things.Ē -- Bryan Price, 10/22/2013

Re: 2013 Bengals Discussion

Lap was on the radio the other night, and said that the Bengals had targeted 3 players for their pick.

1) Ried
2) Eiffert
3) Austin (is that the correct name, the WR out of WVU)

He said as the final weeks wore down, it became obvious that Austin wasn't going to make it to them, so when SF traded up to gt Ried, they got a little ansty hoping that Chicago wouldn't take Eiffert. Which is probably why the pick was so quickly in after Chicago's pick was drafted, the card was probably ready just in case Chicago missed the clock and the Bengals could slide in front of them (I think that happened w/ the Vikings a few seasons back where several picks went before their alloted pick since Minny didn't get the pick in)

Lap said, if Chicago would have taken Eiffert, the Bengals probably would have taken Sharrif Floyd, the DT out of Florida.

Re: 2013 Bengals Discussion

Lap was on the radio the other night, and said that the Bengals had targeted 3 players for their pick.

1) Ried
2) Eiffert
3) Austin (is that the correct name, the WR out of WVU)

He said as the final weeks wore down, it became obvious that Austin wasn't going to make it to them, so when SF traded up to gt Ried, they got a little ansty hoping that Chicago wouldn't take Eiffert. Which is probably why the pick was so quickly in after Chicago's pick was drafted, the card was probably ready just in case Chicago missed the clock and the Bengals could slide in front of them (I think that happened w/ the Vikings a few seasons back where several picks went before their alloted pick since Minny didn't get the pick in)

Lap said, if Chicago would have taken Eiffert, the Bengals probably would have taken Sharrif Floyd, the DT out of Florida.

Wow, that's great information. If not for his late rise up draft boards, it is amazing to think about Tavon Austin in a Bengals uni. I'm happy with Eifert, don't get me wrong -- but MAN. AJ + Austin would be impossible for secondaries to try to cover at once.

"Iíll kind of have a foot on the back of my own butt. Thatís just how I do things.Ē -- Bryan Price, 10/22/2013

Re: 2013 Bengals Discussion

“You want to stay in this business for a while, you’re going to have to take care of your body. If you want to do that, you’re going to have to spend money. It’s not cheap. I spend between $400,000 and $600,000 on body work, year in and year out. I tried out maybe 150 different massage people. Now I’m down to five. I got six people I regularly see.”

Re: 2013 Bengals Discussion

6 year $40 million extension for Dunlap:

The last day to sign right end Michael Johnson in 2013 for the long term turned out to be the first day of left end Carlos Dunlap's long haul with the Bengals for what is believed to be a $40 million extension.

When the Bengals announced it Tuesday, they called it a five-year extension as Dunlap heads into the last year of his rookie deal and is now a Bengal through the 2018 season.

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most
importantly, enjoy yourselves!

RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball